Idaho Chooses Life

It’s been about a week since the new Legislature finished the work they intended, with legislators returning to their districts.

So how did Idaho fare?

Democrats and powerful lobby groups are clearly happy with the session, to judge by their public comments and other press reports which show that Democrats have a new sense of power in the 62nd Legislature. That is particularly true in the House, where Democrats and moderate Republicans combined to impose Obama’s Insurance Exchange upon the people of Idaho.

Despite fierce protests from Idaho business leaders, citizens, pro-Life groups, agriculture and the Idaho Republican Party, Idaho is now a full-fledged junior partner in an unconstitutional scheme to remake the economy and culture under the guise of “health care”.

Idaho Chooses Life strenuously fought ObamaCare coming to Idaho, but we were simply overwhelmed by the immense resources Blue Cross and their allies brought to bear. We were further hamstrung by the large number of freshmen in the building who seemed dazzled by the attention given them by some of the state’s most powerful lobbyists. It proved nearly impossible to reason with some of these folks, who clung to the mythology that, somehow, Idaho would be able to protect its sovereignty by submitting to federal control of our health care industry.

Particularly disappointing was the failure of the Legislature to adopt our “Religious Liberty Amendment” – which would have at least pushed back at the Obama Administration’s evil plan to force Christian employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs as part of their company insurance policies. Many of those voting against our amendment proclaim pro-Life values, some even voted for a “memorial” to Congress just last year on this very topic; but when it really mattered, too many were apparently intimidated by the power of the insurance lobby or the federal government or both.
Idaho’s religious liberties, as guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions, remain unguarded.

All in all, it was a very disappointing session for the pro-Life movement. Not only did we suffer defeat on the Obama Exchange – this legislature failed to pass a single pro-Life bill. That has not happened since the late 1990’s.

We will have more to say about all this in coming days. But know that our resolve is strong to move Idaho forward in defending the innocent and their mothers from the scourge of abortion. It is too early to give up on this Legislature, despite its horrible beginning.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Two cases were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last week addressing the issue of same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of rights, as proponents maintain, nor is it an issue of Biblical marriage, as opponents contend. It is, rather, based in natural law, and is an issue of seismic significance to our culture, our society, and our civilization, and cannot be cavalierly “redefined.”

Dr. Patrick Fagan, a sociologist and psychologist has said, “The family is the fundamental building block of society and predates the state and even the societies it builds…At the heart of the family is the mother and father who bring their children into existence.” This is a self-evident truth, regardless of who said it, and anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, and politicians have reiterated that very sentiment. The family is the building block of society and civilization, and the cornerstone to that foundation, or the genesis of it, is a mother and a father.

Foundations must be strong, and built to withstand the elements, corrosion, and the test of time. Otherwise, the structure built thereon will inevitably crumble. If a foundation is made with unmixed cement or just water, as same-sex marriage tries to do, the foundation is weak, and the structure (our civilization) built thereon will crumble. When we tamper with, and attempt to socially-engineer the foundational elements and institutions to civilization and our society, the results will be destructive.

Redefining marriage based on who one purportedly loves, is a spurious dilution of our societal foundation. Rarely in human history, has marriage been based on who one loves, but has always been about perpetuating the species, and forming familial units that construct the foundation to civilization. Sometimes it’s included multiple spouses of one sex or another, but always it has been based on propagational properties, whether age or fertility exceptions apply or not. Any semantic change to the definition is only that, semantic, and does not change the biological or anthropological verities etymologically embedded in the term. Such a change to accommodate same-sex “marriage” would therefore be nothing more than creating a verbal counterfeit to the real thing. Simply calling my Tahoe a Hummer is a lie, and does not change the fact that it’s still not a Hummer.

Nor is there a “right” to marry whomsoever or whatsoever we please, or profess love for. Such a right is as most other “rights” claimed by those in our society who feel somehow shortchanged, slighted, or disadvantaged. The “right” is not codified in any legal document, much less our founding documents, just like the “right” to health care, or the “right” to a good job. Heterosexual marriage, however, is codified in natural law, as attested by biological and anthropological fact. The test is simple: try building a civilization or a society from scratch with anything other than natural law, heterosexual marriage.

Marriage, historically, has always represented the legal, moral, and cultural recognition of the binding relationship of opposite sexes. Merely definitionally reducing marriage to nothing more than a state legitimized relationship between “people that love each other” is antithetical to the factual basis to our existence as a civilization. The fact is, marriage has always been about protecting society, at least in part, through the possibility of propagation, protection and the creation of family units.

The law of unintended consequences has certainly been manifest elsewhere as natural law, social mores, and societal conventions and institutions like marriage have been redefined and engineered to accommodate exceptions.

Scandinavian countries that have redefined marriage are experiencing a meltdown of traditional marriage. British demographer David Coleman and senior Dutch demographer Joop Garssen have written that “marriage is becoming a minority status” in Scandinavia. In Denmark, a slight majority of all children are still born within marriage. Yet citing the 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate for firstborn children, Danish demographers Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson argue that marriage has ceased to be the normative setting for Danish family life and poses a significant risk to the future stability of Danish society.

There are undoubtedly exogenous contributory factors for the Scandinavian states. But the eradication of natural law and social mores in favor of a politically correct or supposedly amoral redefinition of basic social conventions indisputably are the incipient causes to the unraveling of the family unit.

Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, recently said, “I think you can have social stability without many intact families, but it’s going to be really expensive and it’s going to look very ‘Huxley-Brave New World-ish.’ So [the intact family is] not only the optimal scenario … but it’s the cheapest. How often in life do you get the best and the cheapest in the same package?”

Pastor Rick Warren made a fundamentally true and valid observation in this regard. He said, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” Many are the arguments against same-sex marriage, and none of them frankly have anything to do with discrimination or homophobia.

Doug Mainwaring, an avowed homosexual, proves Warren’s assertion. “Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together…Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.”

Words have meaning, and marriage, as the cornerstone to civilization, is copiously imbued with it. I have yet to hear a logical or cogent explanation as to why a binding homosexual relationship must be a marriage as opposed to a civil union or legal partnership. Rather than weakening and diluting the foundation to our society, we should be strengthening and encouraging it. After all, our future, and stability, as a society is dependent on it.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Rep. Tom Loertsher, R-Bone

Every year we have what we call the “Going Home Bill.” Some years it is about how to balance the budget and this year it was the Education budget. While there were a few other bills that remained to be done in the final few days, this was the one that drew the most attention. This was the week that it took to do about a half of a day’s business due to the slow-down in the Senate the previous week.

History will be a better judge of how well we did this year than trying to evaluate the session at this time. But then why not try anyway? So here is a little run-down of what we did and some of the effects of all of these new laws.

The biggest and most controversial issue by far was the Health Insurance Exchange bill. It consumed the discussion for several weeks and may be the matter on which history will judge us the most critically. You may be asking just what the effects of this process will be? The only honest answer is that we just don’t know yet and won’t know until there are more answers from Washington, D.C. There are so many variables at this point and we are hearing new little unpleasant details almost daily, or so it seems.

Personal Property Tax has to be the number two big deal worked on, again over a several week time frame. At one time it looked like the issue would die altogether and then there was suddenly a bill that came forward from the counties. The process in the bill is cumbersome but should have a positive effect on small businesses.

One noteworthy outcome for the education budget this year is that the general fund increase this year was in excess of eleven percent, which is not bad for a year that general revenues are predicted to come in at an increase of under three percent. Even the minority party supported the budget.
Time will also tell if we should have looked more carefully at Medicaid redesign and the counties’ medically indigent responsibility and the Catastrophic fund. It is sure to be the most talked about issue over the interim.

There is a long list of other things that did not get the attention of the press much or even mentioned for that matter. Federal land management, horse racing purse enhancement, tribal liquor licenses, election law clarifications, and changes to Idaho road law just to mention a few.

It has been a session to remember and now that it has come to a close, the criticism and/or praise is about to commence. And as for me, I had a funny feeling Sunday afternoon in finding myself at home going through the cattle instead of heading back to Boise. I could tell that the Duramax had the same pangs because I had to chain it to the shed to keep it from taking off on its own.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Usually when a new statute or ordinance is created at the state or local level, it’s in response to a problem that needs correction. Such is not the case with the “anti-discrimination” ordinances being considered by several states and municipalities across the nation. As such, they are agenda-driven ordinances which solve nothing, but by the law of unintended consequences, can open a veritable Pandora’s box of legal and social problems.

These ordinances seek “to prohibit discriminatory acts in housing, employment and public accommodations based upon sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.”

Proponents of such ordinances and statutes claim they will “guarantee the safety for everyone living in the community.” There are, in fact, many state, federal and local laws on the books that seek to ensure residents’ safety; none can guarantee it, as evidenced by the police logs which are rife with infractions against the safety of others. Much like so-called “hate crime” laws, these ordinance single out a specific classification of people, granting them extraordinary legal protection beyond that afforded all other citizens.

There is no valid statistical information cataloguing discrimination based on sexual orientation, to my knowledge. All information currently available is anecdotal, at best.

In the absence of empirically verifiable data, we must look for an alternative motive behind the proponents of such laws. We need look no further than the plethora of websites advancing the radical LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) agenda.

The agenda is well defined by their own advocates. Jeff Levi proudly proclaims, “We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right to see government and society affirm our lives.” That they seek public affirmation speaks volumes about how they view themselves and their lifestyle.

Gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined a six-point plan in their book After the Ball, referred to by activists as “a gay manifesto,” which laid out the agenda for how the beliefs and attitudes of ordinary Americans could be transformed to affirm the lifestyle. As they stated, “The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.” They described how the movement should use “propagandistic advertising to depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are ‘not Christian’ and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals] as being discriminated against, hated and shunned.”

Recent polls indicate a growing level of acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle. These data provide empirical evidence which invalidates the movement’s premise; that they’re discriminated against by public opinion. But the problem is in the agenda of those who promote the lifestyle, and seek extraordinary protection, and redefinition and alteration of fundamental social conventions and institutions to affirm the lifestyle of 3% of the population.

Alan Sears and Craig Osten in their book The Homosexual Agenda, identified the four stages that the movement has gone through to reshape the issue. It’s now in the fourth stage of legitimization where, with the full backing of the American Psychiatric Association, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and the education establishment, and even local school districts, the issue has been taken from a treatable psychological disorder to normal, if not preferred, lifestyle in less than 40 years.

Most of the movement’s success can be linked to reshaping the argument from a moral and logical debate to one of “human rights.” As such, all who question the movement and the practice are labeled as “homophobic,” “hateful,” or “intolerant” toward those who are merely “different.” And they do so with all the acrimony, animus, and vitriol they can muster and get away with in print and the airwaves.

Society has been reprogrammed to assume they’re victims, even with all the laws on the books preventing discrimination and assuring Equal Opportunity Employment protections. With the passage of “hate crime” legislation, they now have super protection where opponents can and are literally deprived of their freedom of speech for expressing opposition to their agenda. In England and Canada, ministers have been arrested for referring to it as a moral issue. Following our current course, the same will undoubtedly occur here in the not-too distant future.

There is a sharp distinction that needs to be drawn between acceptance of those of different persuasions, and acceptance of the militant, extremist tactics of the movement advancing their cause. Conflating the two is illogical and fallacious.

And this is not a “civil rights” issue like racial discrimination, because it is completely self-defined, based on inclinations and behavior. All one has to do to qualify for protection under this ordinance is claim to be homosexual or transgendered. Civil rights issues cannot logically be based upon what one merely claims themselves to be, without creating inequality under the law.

George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” That is precisely what we are witnessing now, as those who accept and promote normalcy, the orientation which perpetuates the species and forms the anthropological and biological foundation of our culture and civilization, are publicly excoriated for having the temerity to publicly express it.

These “anti-discrimination” laws and ordinances have no needful basis in reality, and should be rejected. We openly and compassionately accept each other regardless of orientation. What we don’t accept is the radical agenda implemented to promote it.

One final note, as well. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) added protection for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals as a form of sex discrimination illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in 2012 they expanded protection for transgender status and gender identity. Interestingly, in spite of copious data on other forms of possible employment discrimination, including religious, there is no data provided for any of those classifications. There clearly is little empirical justification for this type of ordinance, other than anecdotal, but compelling evidence that it’s agenda-driven.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

Last spring we were trying to finish up planting our grain and we had about 15 acres left when the bell housing in our Steiger tractor broke leaving us without a clutch and other problems. What that meant was that it took us another day to get another piece of equipment in the field and be able to finish the planting for the year. What happened here last week was much like that experience in that we were within a day of finishing our work when the “bell housing” broke. Thursday a big push was made to resolve the issues so that we could get out of town. No matter how close we were, we just didn’t have the wherewithal to fix the problems and adjourn.

The situation centered around the failure of the K-12 budget to pass the Senate and all of the items that the budget contained. Some thought there was not enough money in the budget. Others thought there was too much money in the budget. Some thought there was not enough flexibility for the school districts. Others thought there was way too much intent language (policy matters that had no public input). It’s quite frustrating to realize that the House had all but finished its business, and now we must wait upon the Senate for a solution to the problem they have created.

A bill that I have been working on for a good part of the session is one that makes some changes to road law. It has been a challenging task because there have been so many different groups in the room discussing what ought to be done. This is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we will pass all year. The bill insures that private property rights are protected, that access to public lands is also protected and enhanced, and also provides for a new review by the court to include new information where something might have been overlooked during the commissioners hearing process. It is one of those rare bills that has the support of all concerned, highway districts, counties, irrigation districts, utilities, the Farm Bureau, and the Food Producers of Idaho, along with private landowners. It passed both Houses and is on the Governor’s desk.

We’ve also been instructed by leadership that there is to be no more talk about Medicaid expansion this session. The downside is that we will not be able to consider the companion piece of legislation, the repeal of our medically indigent law and the repeal of the Catastrophic Fund. Making those changes would provide lowering of property taxes statewide of about $478 million over the next decade. Even though the session has been extended for a few days, we have been told to leave it alone for this year.

And now we find ourselves facing another week at the capitol with only a few pieces of legislation to consider. These are the things that we are required to do by our state Constitution and that is to pass a budget. I was asked all weekend how long that would take, and the only way I can answer is that it is hard to tell because we have absolutely no idea at this point how long it will take to get the factions together. I sure hope it’s soon because the Steiger is fixed and ready to go and the ground is drying out rapidly. I don’t know about you, but I had a touch of spring fever over the weekend.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

This week’s iteration of the Euro crisis surfaced in tiny Cyprus, and the EU attempted to force government confiscation of private customer bank deposits before another bailout would be authorized. Can governments really steal from private citizen’s bank accounts, and could it happen here? The answer to both is a qualified, yet disturbing “Yes.”

Due to massive public and private debt and a deep financial connection with fiscally troubled Greece, Cyprus is the sixth of the EU’s seventeen countries to receive massive monetary infusions to maintain solvency. In an unprecedented move, the EU voted to have Cyprus raid Cypriot bank deposits for up to 38% before another bailout would be authorized.

Americans should take note, not only of what’s happening in the Eurozone with Cyprus right now, but especially at how our domestic fiscal policy mirrors what’s been happening in Europe, and at how the U.S. is creating a similar future crisis.

To recapitulate the issue in simple terms, global economic growth, especially in the Eurozone, has slowed dramatically, since the financial crisis of 2008. This has revealed the problematic fiscal policies of many countries, which have continued to spend exorbitantly in spite of reduced tax revenue. When economic growth declines, so do tax receipts. That gap between spending and receipts creates significant budgetary deficits, which is unsustainable, and jeopardizes the liquidity and viability of the banking systems of the respective countries, since they hold much of their debt.
The Cypriot parliament voted late Friday on a plan to come up with the requisite 5.8 billion Euros needed for unlocking the 10 billion Euro bailout. Customer accounts with greater than 100,000 Euros are at risk of being raided by their own government. A defalcation of customer deposits would be a new low for any government that now has to pay the price for their own imprudent fiscal management.

It’s unlikely, given current laws and regulation, that U.S. bank customers would face a similar governmental theft of their deposits. But that can easily change, and some experts fear such a scenario is possible in light of some developments, especially for retirement accounts.

In November, Atlantic Monthly ran a story, “The 401(k) Is a $240 Billion Waste.” Time Magazine ran a similar story. Both referenced a Danish study, that concludes that government should abolish the tax-advantaged status and deductibility of retirement accounts, for they amount to “subsidies” granted to “the rich.” As soon as government recognizes a benefit as a subsidy, they believe they own it.

Also in November, Investor’s Business Daily reported that The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries had launched a campaign to alert retirement planners to possible changes to individual retirement accounts.

On January 18th, Richard Cordray, the acting head of the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), was interviewed by Bloomberg. They reported, “The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is weighing whether it should take on a role in helping Americans manage the $19.4 trillion they have put into retirement savings, a move that would be the agency’s first foray into consumer investments.” The CFPB was created by the Dodd-Frank legislation with wide-ranging powers. The agency works within the Federal Reserve, a corporation privately owned by member banks, and is insulated from congressional oversight, and its budget is not subject to legislative control.

The National Seniors Council (NSC) issued this warning two years ago. “A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans.”

“This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,” explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, “However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.”

Deputy Treasury Secretary J. Mark Iwry presided over the hearing. He is a long-time critic of 401k plans because he believes they “benefit the rich.” He also appears to be the Administration’s point man driving this effort.

“This whole issue is moving forward very quickly,” warns Crone. “Already there is a bill requiring all businesses to automatically enroll their employees in IRA plans in which part of every employee’s paycheck would be automatically deducted and deposited into this [government] account. If this passes, the government will be just one step away from being able to confiscate all these retirement accounts.”

There are many who question the NSC’s take on this, and others who outright deny it. But when those at the highest levels of government harbor an ideology distinctly more European than American, anything is possible. Once sacrosanct principles of private property ownership and individual liberty are at risk of subjugation to the prevailing ideology. Cyprus may be just the beginning, and not just for EU states.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

by Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

I like to look at headlines and as I was looking at a list of headlines from the past week, I think you could agree that the legislature has been extremely busy. I know that I have been very busy and continue to work on some projects, before the legislature in the very near future comes to an end for this year.

One of the most talked about issues this year that will be before the full Senate is the personal property tax issue. The bill does provide for the removal of personal property taxation for approximately 90% of the businesses in Idaho. There have been so many editorials on the subject both pro and con, that the only conclusion you could draw would be that at a minimum it will reduce a lot of paperwork problems for small businesses. Likewise it would provide some relief for the County assessor in trying to get the list of all personal property from business owners every year.

This seems to be the year of the “informational” meeting. This last week I was involved in two of those, one was a joint meeting of the House and Senate State Affairs Committees and the other was a joint meeting of the House and Senate Health and Welfare Committees.

In State Affairs it was a presentation by the “Add the Words” group. In contrast to last year, the group conducted itself very well and gave only information on the subject of changing our human rights law to include gender identity and sexual orientation. It was not an official hearing on legislation, but was meant to be informational for members of the legislature.

An early morning session of the Health and Welfare Committees was a listening session with no public testimony, on the repeal of the County Medically Indigent law in addition to the repeal of the Catastrophic Healthcare Cost Program. I was asked to make presentation on that item and then the director of Health and Welfare gave a presentation on Medicaid Expansion, which he labeled Medicaid Redesign. There were a lot of questions and some eagerness by some committee members to move forward. These two items should be a very hot topic for the coming week.

While I served in Germany and as I learned the German language, I was told that you could tell how well you had learned to speak, if you dreamed about your mother speaking German to you. I guess you could say around this place that the session had gone on just about long enough if you are dreaming about passing legislation all night. So I guess that time has arrived because I find myself thinking about what is going on in the House during my sleeping hours. At least I think I was asleep. How did that old saying go? “I dreamed that I was awake, and then I woke up and found out I was asleep.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The Idaho Senate gave final approval to Obama’s Exchange on a 23-12 vote Thursday. The last act of the drama will be Governor Otter’s signature in the next week or so.

Voting for Obama Exchange: Sens. Steve Bair (R-Blackfoot), Les Bock (D-Boise), Bert Brackett (R-Rogerson), Cherie Buckner-Webb(D-Boise), Dean Cameron(R-Rupert), Bart Davis(R-Idaho Falls), John Goedde(R-Coeur d’Alene), Jim Guthrie(R-McCammon), Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian), Lee Heider (R-Twin Falls), Brent Hill (R-Rexburg), Shawn Keough (R-Sandpoint), Roy Lacey (D-Pocatello), Todd Lakey, (R-Nampa), Patti Anne Lodge (R-Huston), Fred Martin (R-Boise), Jim Patrick (R-Twin Falls), Jim Rice (R-Caldwell), Dan Schmidt (D-Moscow), Jeff Siddoway (R-Terreton), Michelle Stennett (D-Ketchum), John Tippets (R-Montpelier) and Elliot Werk (D-Boise).

Voting No (the pro-Life position): Sens. Cliff Bayer (R-Boise), Branden Durst (D-Boise), Russ Fulcher (R-Meridian), Dan Johnson (R-Lewiston), Curt McKenzie (R-Nampa), Dean Mortimer (R-Idaho Falls), Bob Nonini (R-Coeur d’Alene), Sheryl Nuxoll (R-Cottonwood), Monty Pearce (R-New Plymouth), Steven Thayn (R-Emmett), Steve Vick (R-Dalton Gardens), and Chuck Winder (R-Boise).

Here is the Senate vote on our Religious Liberty Amendment (Nuxoll/Fulcher):

Voting to Amend the bill: (the pro-Life position): Sens. Cliff Bayer (R-Boise), Branden Durst (D-Boise), Russ Fulcher (R-Meridian), Dan Johnson (R-Lewiston), Curt McKenzie (R-Nampa), Dean Mortimer (R-Idaho Falls), Bob Nonini (R-Coeur d’Alene), Sheryl Nuxoll (R-Cottonwood), Monty Pearce (R-New Plymouth), Steven Thayn (R-Emmett), Steve Vick (R-Dalton Gardens).

Voting Against the Religious Liberty Amendment: Sens. Steve Bair (R-Blackfoot), Les Bock (D-Boise), Dean Cameron (R-Rupert), Bart Davis (R-Idaho Falls), John Goedde (R-Coeur d’Alene), Jim Guthrie (R-McCammon), Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian), Lee Heider (R-Twin Falls), Brent Hill (R-Rexburg), Shawn Keough (R-Sandpoint), Roy Lacey (D-Pocatello), Todd Lakey (R-Nampa), Patti Anne Lodge (R-Nampa), Fred Martin (R-Boise), Jim Patrick (R-Twin Falls), Jim Rice (R-Caldwell), Dan Schmidt (D-Moscow), Jeff Siddoway (R-Terreton), Michelle Stennett (D-Ketchum), John Tippets (R-Montpelier), Elliot Werk (D-Boise), Chuck Winder (R-Boise).

And here is how the Idaho House of Representatives Voted on the Obama Exchange, which passed by a vote of 41-29:

Voting yes: Reps. Anderson(01), Anderson(31), Anderst, Bedke, Bell, Bolz, Burgoyne, Chew, Clow, Collins, Erpelding, Eskridge, Gannon, Gibbs, Hancey, Hartgen, Henderson, Hixon, Horman, Kauffman, King, Kloc, Malek, Meline, Miller, Morse, Packer, Pence, Perry, Raybould, Ringo, Romrell, Rusche, Smith, Thompson, VanOrden, Ward-Engelking, Wills, Wood(27), Woodings, and Youngblood.

(13 Democrats + 28 Republicans)

Voting No (the pro-Life position): Reps. Agidius, Andrus, Barbieri, Barrett, Bateman, Batt, Boyle, Crane, Dayley, DeMordaunt, Denney, Gestrin, Harris, Holtzclaw, Loertscher, Luker, McMillan, Mendive, Monks, Moyle, Nielsen, Palmer, Patterson, Shepherd, Sims, Stevenson, Trujillo, Vander Woude, and Wood(35)

Here is how the House voted on our Religious Liberty Amendment (Barbieri/ Boyle), which failed on a 32-38 vote:

Voting Yes (the pro-Life position): Reps. Agidius, Andrus, Barbieri, Barrett, Bateman, Batt, Boyle, Collins, Crane, Dayley, DeMordaunt, Denney, Gestrin, Harris, Hartgen, Holtzclaw, Loertscher, Luker, McMillan, Mendive, Monks, Moyle, Nielsen, Palmer, Patterson, Shepherd, Sims, Stevenson, Thompson, Trujillo, Vander Woude, andWood(35).

Voting No: Reps. Anderson(01), Anderson(31), Anderst, Bedke, Bell, Bolz, Burgoyne, Chew, Clow, Erpelding, Eskridge, Gannon, Gibbs, Hancey, Henderson, Hixon, Horman, Kauffman, King, Kloc, Malek, Meline, Miller, Morse, Packer, Pence, Perry, Raybould, Ringo, Romrell, Rusche, Smith, VanOrden, Ward-Engelking, Wills, Wood(27), Woodings, and Youngblood

(13 Democrats + 25 Republicans)

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Catholic Charities testified before the Senate Commerce Committee this week, urging legislators to impose ObamaCare upon the citizens of Idaho by creating Obama’s insurance exchange.

In so doing, the Church-affiliated organization gave some political cover to legislators grasping to maintain their pro-Life credentials while helping President Obama expand his attack on the sanctity of human life.

In essence, Ms. Tiddens told committee members: Our priority is helping the poor with more government money. We may feel bad about that abortion stuff … but that is really a federal problem. What’s important here is the money.

To say the least, this is troubling – particularly because many legislators believe that Ms. Tiddens was/is speaking for the Bishop of Idaho.

Ms. Tiddens is factually incorrect when she argues that there is nothing Idaho legislators can do about the Obama Mandate to provide free abortifacient drugs under a health insurance exchange. We have been pushing a “Religious Liberty Amendment” all session, and continue work behind the scenes to secure this basic protection for Idaho citizens and employers. We have done so, by the way, without any help from Ms. Tiddens or Catholic Charities.

Catholic Charities is also apparently oblivious to the fact that the threats posed by ObamaCare go well beyond abortifacients.

For example, what will their rationalization be when health care is restricted for certain citizens deemed “unworthy” of communal resources? When the Death Panel begins imposing rules and regulations upon the people of Idaho?

The Catholic Church has long taught the doctrine of refusing to cooperate with evil. It is indisputable that much evil is loose in ObamaCare – which is more about imposing a foreign value system than it is health care. But it seems that Catholic Charities is blinded by a different doctrine – a “social justice” agenda that is often nothing more than whitewash for social activists at war with traditional Catholic values.

The Lord himself declared that we cannot serve God and mammon.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

When I was a younger man, I once heard a speaker tell our group that the best way to kill time is to work it to death. I don’t want to give anyone the impression that we just kill time in the legislature, however, this last week we certainly did work a lot of it to death.

It may be ancient history for most now, but the floor debate on setting up an insurance exchange was a history making event on several fronts. I suppose the House felt the necessity of outdoing the Senate by debating the issue for an hour longer than they did. Last Wednesday was a very long day and the debate on the bill took exactly 7 hours. I guess I am as guilty as the next guy and did spend just a couple of minutes describing what I think the basic issues revolving around the exchange issue are. After all of the long faces during that whole process I thought I might try to put a smile on those faces with a lighter comment. I said, “If you laid all of the members of this body end to end that had drifted off to sleep during this debate, they sure would be a lot more comfortable.” My plan worked.

I still remain skeptical as to whether this is the right approach for us to take. Two of the overriding issues for me have been, (1) what is the benefit of having an insurance exchange and how would it help all concerned, health insurance companies, their customers, health care providers and the state, and (2) what will be the added cost of the exchange that will be borne by the taxpayers? In all of the discussions that I have had with regard to this issue, those two questions have yet to answered. After weighing all of the evidence on both sides of the issue, I voted no. I do think that expanding our health insurance markets would be a good thing. But I don’t think this plan provides that when there is no ability to shop for insurance across state lines.

Several weeks ago, I had two bills drafted that have turned out to be the talk of the town after they were introduced (printed). The first is the one that’s nearest and dearest to my heart, the repeal of the county medically indigent law along with the repeal of the Catastrophic Program. The other that has caused the most interest, at least in some circles, is the expansion of the Medicaid program in the State of Idaho. Both of these issues would of necessity need to be considered together, because if Idaho decides to expand Medicaid, the catastrophic fund and the county responsibility for the medically indigent would have to end. There is no way Idaho taxpayers could sustain both programs. The Department of Health and Welfare has compiled cost estimates in consultation with the Medicaid actuary they use for projecting the cost of programs. It looks like we would not save a great deal of money, but it would not increase our general fund expenditures either. The real benefit comes when you consider that property taxes statewide would be decreased by an estimated $478 million over the next decade if the counties are no longer in the business.

So, as a result, I will be spending quite a bit of my time this next week evaluating these two bills and their cost, and determining if the legislature desires to move forward. I was asked by one reporter why I had waited so long to introduce these two bills. The short answer is that I was asked to hold off until the exchange legislation was voted on in the House. My agenda for this next week will be extremely full and I intend on working a lot of hours to death.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.